From: "Rich Gauszka" 

Bad example. At Nuremberg the three major wartime powers agreed on a format
for punishment for war crimes ( France was awarded a place on the tribunal
). Here it's just trusting in Bush's judgment  ( and we all know how good
that is ) to lock someone out without the benefit of Habeas Corpus.

 .
"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:467168cb$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> You are wrong.  Prisoners of War can be tried for violating the normal
> rules of war.  See Nuremberg.  Others can be held for the duration of the
> conflict without any trial seeking a sentence of confinement.  Those tried
> and found guilty of some violation of the normal rules of war can be held
> BEYOND the term of the conflict in accordance with their sentence.  Again
> see Nuremberg.
>
> Gary
>
> Adam > wrote:
>> Gary Britt wrote:
>>> So you are saying that german prisoners of war in WWII were entitled to
>>> a trial before a federal judge and proof beyond a reasonable doubt that
>>> they violated some applicable USA criminal statute??    You are saying
>>> that if they were apprehended on the battlefield or as spies in the USA
>>> by the military without proper search warrants they must be set free???
>>>
>>> Are you sure that's what you are saying??  You are either saying that or
>>> you are acknowledging that there are TWO applicable systems one for
>>> CRIME and one for WAR.  Each with different rules and standards for
>>> people apprehended and detained.  You can't have it both ways, so is it
>>> one system or two systems?
>>>
>>
>> But that is precisely what the Bush admin has been trying to do.
>>
>> Are these people prisoners of war or criminals. If the former then
>> attacking US etc troops or aiding those doing so is their duty & is not
>> something they can be tried for.
>>
>> Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5